ON APPROACHING THIS SUBJECT I seem to be possessed by an unusual eagerness in my quest to
clarify the facts about Paradise, its place, and its nature to those who are desirous of this
knowledge. This is all the more remarkable since the Apostle did not know whether he was in the
body or out of the body, yet he says that he ‘was caught up to the third heaven.’
[ 2 Cor. 12:2 ] And again he says: ‘I know such a man-whether in the body or out of
the body I do not know, God knows-that he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words that
man may not repeat. Of such a man I will boast; but of myself I will glory in nothing save in my
infirmities. For if I do wish to boast, I shall not be foolish; for I am speaking the
truth.’ [ 2 Cor. 12:3-6 ] If Paradise, then, is of such a nature that Paul alone, or
one like Paul, could scarcely see it while alive, and still was unable to remember whether he saw
it in the body or out of the body, and, moreover, heard words that he was forbidden to reveal--if
this be true, how will it be possible for us to declare the position of Paradise which we have
not been able to see and, even if we had succeeded in seeing it, we would be forbidden to share
this information with others? And, again, since Paul shrank from exalting himself by reason of
the sublimity of the revelation, how much more ought we to strive not to be too anxious to
disclose that which leads to danger by its very revelation! The subject of Paradise should not,
therefore, be treated lightly. With these words let us set aside the question of what was hidden
to Paul.

Nevertheless, we can find out who was the Creator of this Paradise.
We read in Genesis that ‘God planted a garden to the east and he put there the man he
had formed.’ [ Gen 2:8 ] Who had the power to create Paradise, if not almighty God, who
’spoke and they were made' [ Ps 32:9 ] and who was never in want of the thing which
He wished to bring into being? He planted, therefore, that Paradise of which He says in His
wisdom: ‘Every plant which my Father has not planted will be rooted up.’ [
Matt.15:13 ] This is a goodly plantation for angels and saints. The saints are said to lie
beneath the fig tree and the vine. [ Mich 6:6 ] In this respect they are the type of the angels [
Mark 12:25 ] in that time of peace which is to come.

Hence, Paradise has many trees that are fruit-bearing, with plenty of sap, and vigor. Of these
it is said: ‘All the trees of the woods shall rejoice.’ [ Ps 95:12 ] The woods
flourish ever with the green shoots of merit, just like that ’tree which is planted near
the running waters, whose leaf shall not fall off,’ [ Ps 1:3 ] because its fruit is
plenteous. Here, then, is Paradise.

The place where it is planted is called delight; wherefore holy David says: ‘Thou
shalt not make them drink of the torrent of thy pleasure,’ [ Ps 35:9 ] for you have
read that ‘a river rose in Eden watering the garden.’ [ Gen 2:10 ] These
woods, therefore, which were planted in Paradise are watered by the outpouring of the waters of
that spirit concerning which He says elsewhere: ‘The stream of the river maketh the city
of God joyful.’ [ Ps 45:5 ] Here is that city of Jerusalem which above is free, [ Gal
4:26 ] in which the different merits of the saints come to fruition.

In this garden, therefore, God put the man He had formed. Take note that He placed man there
not in respect to the image of God, but in respect to the body of man. The incorporeal does not
exist in a place. He placed man in Paradise, just as He placed the sun in heaven, awaiting
lordship over the heavens, just as the creature expects the revelation of the sons of God. [ Rom
8:9 ]

Hence, if Paradise is a place where shrubs have opportunity to blossom, then Paradise has a
certain vital force which receives and multiplies seeds in which each and every virtue is
planted, and where flourishes the tree of life which is called Wisdom. Of this, Solomon says that
Wisdom arose not of the earth but of the Father: ‘For she is the brightness of eternal
light’ and ‘the emanation of the glory of the almighty God.’ [ Wisd 7:25-26
]

There was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Paradise. This
was so because ‘God made to grow a tree pleasant to sight and good for food, the tree of
life also in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’ [
Gen 2:9 ] We shall see later whether this tree, like the others, was pleasant to sight and good
for food. The question will be more fittingly discussed at the point where, on tasting the fruit
of this tree, we find that man was deceived. Meantime, we should no[t] reproach ourselves for not
being able to know precisely the reasons behind these facts. We should not form a hasty judgment
in respect to this product of creation, if it presents to our intellect what seems to us--like
the creation of serpents and certain poisonous creatures--difficult and incomprehensible. In
fact, we are unable, owing to human weakness, yet to know and understand the reason for the
creation of each and every object. Let us, therefore, not criticise in holy Scripture something
which we cannot comprehend. There are very many things which must not be subjected to the
judgment of our intellect. Rather, these should be surveyed from the lofty heights of Divine
Providence and from the intentions of God Himself.

Without prejudice, then, to what we shall say hereafter, set it down as a first principle that
the subject of this tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to you a displeasing one. After men
had tasted of this tree, they realized that they were naked. [ Gen 3:7 ] Nevertheless, I will
state for your benefit that as a consummation of God’s creation this tree grew in Paradise
and that it was permitted by God, in order that we might be able to know the pre-eminence of
good. How could we learn to know that there was a difference between good and evil, if there
existed no knowledge of good and evil? We could not have come to realize that evil was evil,
unless there was knowledge of good, and that there could not be knowledge of good, unless there
was actual good. Again, we could not have know [NOTE: should be known? -CA] what in itself was
good, unless there was knowledge of evil. Take an example from the nature of the human body.
There exists as a matter of fact a certain bitter and poisonous substance which has been
discovered to have a general salutary effect on the health of men. Hence, what we regard as evil
frequently turns out to be not in every respect evil, but to be advantageous for general use.
Just as poison exists in a part of the body but has a beneficial effect on the body as a whole,
so God established the knowledge in part of what is good and evil, in order that the whole might
be benefitted.

Hence it follows that the serpent in Paradise was certainly not brought into being without the
will of God. In the figure of the serpent we see the Devil. That the Devil existed even in
Paradise we are informed by the Prophet Ezekiel, who in discussing the Prince of Tyre says:
‘Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God.’ [ Ezek 28:13 ] We
maintain that the Prince of Tyre stands for the Devil. Shall we, therefore, accuse God because we
cannot comprehend the treasures--with the exception of those which He has deigned to reveal--of
His majesty and wisdom which lie hidden and concealed in Christ? Yet He did reveal to us the fact
that the wickedness of the Devil is fruitful for man’s salvation. This would not be the
Devil’s intention, but the Lord makes the wickedness of him who stands in opposition to us
contribute something to our salvation. The wickedness of the Devil has caused the virtue and
patience of one holy man to shine in a clearer light. The justice of Job was so disciplined and
exercised by the wickedness of his opponent that eventually he gained the crown of victory over
his adversary, the Devil. No one is crowned ‘unless he has competed according to the
rules.’ [ 2 Tim 2:5 ] Joseph’s chastity, too, would never have been recorded for
us, if it did not happen that a woman, the wife of his master and friend, incited and goaded by
the Devil’s allurements, had not played with his affections. [ Gen 39:17 ] This woman
finally endeavored to bring about his death. This event added more to the fame of a man who by
his continence faced death in defense of chastity. Do you desire to know God’s plan? Here
is an instance. Through the instrumentality of the Devil there was once an occasion when a just
man prepared to perpetrate manslaughter. The situation was one that involved the murder of
one’s own son. Yet, for all that, the Lord tempted Abraham in this wise. He demanded that
Abraham sacrifice his son to Him. By reason of this temptation he was able to prove himself
faithful to the Lord, since compliance to his vow and not pity for his beloved son brought about
repeal of the order. [ Gen 22:1 ] There was, therefore, in Paradise a tree of knowledge of good
and evil which appeared to the eye to be beautiful and to the taste to be edible. It was not
actually good to eat, for its fruit appeared to have a harmful effect on man. What is injurious
to individuals may nevertheless have a beneficial effect on men as a whole. The Devil, for
example, did harm to Judas, [ Luke 22:3 ] but he bestowed the wreath of victory on all the other
Apostles, inasmuch as they were able to face and overcome the force of his temptation.

Accordingly, let it not be a subject of reprehension or doubt that the Devil existed in
Paradise. As a matter of fact he was powerless to bar from the saints the way of their ascent. As
one who had the right of possession, he did not evict the just from their habitation. It may be
that he turned away from the occupancy of that high estate some who were in fact slothful and
vicious. There is a recorded event that arouses to a much greater degree our regard and our
admiration. This is the fact that the Devil was excluded from the prayers of the saints as the
result of an event which was to take place: ‘I was watching Satan fall as lightning from
heaven.’ [ Luke 10:18 ] Let us, therefore, not fear one who is so weak that he is
destined to fall from heaven. He actually received the power to tempt us but not the competency
to subvert us, except when our weak and unassisted will falters because it is powerless to summon
aid. For that reason we need to know what was the nature of the deceit inflicted on the first
man. We ought to know, too, the method and manner of the Devil’s procedure and what in man
he thought was subject to temptation, so that we, in knowing this, may proceed to take
precautions.

Many people nevertheless are of the opinion that the Devil was not in Paradise, although we
read that he stood with the angels in heaven. [ Zech. 3:1 ] These persons interpret the statement
of Scripture according to their own fancy. In this way they put aside any objection which they
may have to the words of Scripture. We stand by the conviction held by one who preceded us that
sin was committed by man because of the pleasure of sense. We maintain that the figure of the
serpent stands for enjoyment and the figure of the woman for the emotions of the mind and heart.
The latter is called by the Greeks aisthesis . When according to this theory, the senses
are nous deceived, the mind, which the Greeks call nous , falls into error. Hence,
not without reason the author to whom I refer [Cf. Philo, De opificio mundi 59; Legum allegoriae
I 29.] accepts the Greek word nous as a figure of a man and aisthesis as that of a
woman. Hence, some have interpreted Adam to mean an earthly nous . In the Gospel the Lord
sets forth the parable of the virgins who awaited the coming of the bridegroom with either
lighted or extinguished lamps. Thus He exemplifies either the pure emotions of the wise or the
impure senses of the unwise. [ Matt 25:1 ] If Eve, that is, the emotions of the first woman, had
kept her lamp lighted, she would not have enfolded us in the meshes of her sin. She would not
have fallen from the height of immortality which is established as the reward of virtue.

Paradise is, therefore, a land of
fertility-that is to say, a soul which is fertile-planted in Eden, that is, in a certain
delightful or well-tilled land in which the soul finds pleasure. Adam exists there as nous
[mind] and Eve as ‘sense.’ Take note of what this soul of ours has in the nature
of defense against natural and weak tendencies or against situations which might be unfavorable
to us in our attempts to avoid danger.

There was a fount which irrigated the land of Paradise. [ Gen 2:10 ] Is not this stream our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Fount as well as the Father of eternal life? It is written: ‘For
with thee is the fountain of life.’ [ Ps 35:10 ] Hence: ‘From within him there
shall flow living waters.’ [ John 7:38; cf. Isa 58:11 ] We read of a fountain and a
river which irrigates in Paradise the fruit-bearing tree that bears fruit for life eternal. You
have read, then, that a fount was there and that ‘a river rose in Eden,’ [ Gen
2:10 ] ,/cite 4 that is, in your soul there exists a fount. This is the meaning of
Solomon’s words: ‘Drink water out of thy own cistern and the streams of thy own
well.’ [ Prov 5:15 ] This refers to the fount which rose out of that well-tilled soul,
full of pleasant things, this fount which irrigates Paradise, that is to say, the soul’s
virtues that blossom because of their eminent merits.

‘The river,’ we are told, ‘is separated into four branches. The name of
one is Phison which encircles all the land of Hevila, where there is gold. And the gold of that
land is good, bdellium and onyx there. The name of the second river is Gihon. This river
encircles all the land of Ethiopia. The name of the third river is Tigris, which river flows by
the Assyrians. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.’ [ Gen 2:10-14 ] There are,
therefore, four rivers. Phison--so called by the Hebrews, but named Ganges by the Greeks--flows
in the direction of India. Gihon is the river Nile, which flows around the land of Egypt or
Ethiopia. The land enclosed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is called Mesopotamia because it
lives between these two rivers. This name conveys its location even to far-distant peoples and,
besides, expresses popular belief. But how is the fount called the Wisdom of God? That this is a
fount the Gospel tells us in the words, ‘If anyone thirst, let him come to me and
drink.’ [ John 7:37 ] Wisdom is a fount according to the Prophet: ‘Come and
eat my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you.’ [ Prov 9:15 ] As Wisdom
is the fountain of life, it is also the fountain of spiritual grace. It is also the fountain of
other virtues which guide us to the course of eternal life. Therefore, the stream that irrigates
Paradise rises from the soul when well-tilled, not from the soul which lies uncultivated. The
results therefrom are fruit trees of diverse virtues. There are four principal trees which
constitute the divisions of Wisdom. These are the well-known four principal virtues: prudence,
temperance, fortitude, and justice. The wise men of this world have adopted this division from us
and transferred it to their writings. Hence, Wisdom acts as the source from which these four
rivers take their rise, producing streams that are composed of these virtues.

Phison, therefore, stands for prudence. Hence it has pure gold, brilliant rubies, and topaz
stones. We often refer to wise discoveries as gold, as the Lord says, speaking through the
Prophet: ‘I gave to them gold and silver.’ [ Hosea 2:8 ] Daniel says of the
wise: ‘If you sleep among the midst of the lots, you shall be as the wings of the dove
covered with silver and the hinder parts of her back like to gold.’ [ Ps 67:14 ] In
this way one who puts his trust in the aid of the Old and New Testament can by resourceful
inquiry attain the inmost secrets of the Wisdom of God. Here, therefore, is found pure gold, not
the metal which is melted, which belongs to this earth, and is subject to corruption. In this
land, we are told, there is found the brilliant ruby stone in which there exists the vita spark
of our souls. Here, too, is the topaz stone which by the nature of its color reveals an effect of
greenness and vitality. Plants which are alive give forth green sprouts, while those that are
dead are sapless and dry. The earth grows green when it is in bloom. The seeds, too, sprout forth
green shoots in their periods of growth. The river Phison is rightfully given first place. The
Hebrews call it Pheoyson, which means ‘change of mouth,’ because it flows even
through Lydia and not merely around one nation, for Wisdom, which is of benefit to all men, is
productive and useful. Hence, if a person were to leave Paradise, this river of Wisdom would be
the first object he would meet. Thus he may not become inert and arid and his return to Paradise
may be facilitated. Many men resort to this river, which is considered to have marvelous beauty
and fecundity. Accordingly, it is regarded as a figure of Wisdom, which confers manifold fruits
in the coming of the Lord of Salvation. It flows, too, to the very ends of the earth, because, by
Wisdom all men have been redeemed. Wherefore it is written: ‘Their sound hath gone forth
into all the earth and their words unto the end of the world.’ [ Ps 18:5 ]

The second river is Gihon, by which, when they were sojourning in Egypt, was laid down the law
of the Israelites that they should depart from Egypt, [ Exod 12:11 ] and having girded their
loins they should as a sign of temperance partake of a lamb. It is fitting that the chaste and
the sanctified should celebrate the Pasch of the Lord. For that reason, the observance of the Law
was first carried out beside that river, the name of which signifies an opening of the earth.
Therefore, just as an opening absorbs the earth and whatever defilements and refuse there may be
in it, in like manner chastity tends to consume all the passions of the body. Appropriately,
then, the observance of the established Law first took place there, because carnal sin is
absorbed by the Law. And so Gihon, which is a figure of chastity, is said to surround the land of
Ethiopia in order to wash away our lowly bodies and quench the fires of our vile flesh. The
meaning of Ethiopia in Latin is ‘holy and vile.’ What is more lowly, what is more
like Ethiopia, than our bodies, blackened, too, by the darkness of sin?

The third river is the Tigris, which flows by the Assyrian land. To this river the deceiver
Israel was dragged as a prisoner. This river is the swiftest of all rivers. The Assyrian dwell by
it, guarding its course--for this is the meaning of its name. Hence, those who by their fortitude
hold in check the guileful vices of the body and direct themselves to higher things are thought
to have something in common with this river. For that same reason fortitude emanates from that
source in Paradise. Fortitude in its rapid course tosses aside everything standing in its path
and like this river is not hindered by any material obstacle.

The fourth river is the Euphrates, which means in Latin ‘fecundity and abundance of
fruits.’ It presents a symbol of Justice, the nourishment of every soul. No virtue produces
more abundant benefits than Equity or Justice, which is more concerned with others than with
itself, neglecting its own advantages, and preferring the common good. Many derive Euphrates from
the Greek apo tou euphrainesthai --that is, from a ‘feeling of gladness,’
because the human race rejoices in nothing more than it does in Justice and Equity. The question
as to why, although the location itself of other rivers is reported, we have no description of
the regions through which the river Euphrates flows calls for an answer. The waters of this river
are considered to have a vital quality which fosters growth and increase. Wherefore, the wise men
among the Hebrews and the Assyrians called this river Auxen [increase] in contradistinction to
the water of other rivers. The opposition has been well established between wisdom and malice,
fortitude and irascibility, temperance, and other vices. Justice, on the other hand, is the most
important as it represents the concord of all the other virtues. Hence it is not known from the
places from which it flows, that is to say, it is not known in part. Justice is not divisible
into parts. It is, as it were, the mother of all virtues. In these four rivers are symbolized,
therefore, the four principal virtues. It may well be said that these virtues have been the
determining boundary lines for the four great ages of the world. This, in fact, is the topic of
the discourse which follows.

The first age, then, is the age of Wisdom. This period extends from the beginnings of the
world up to the time of the Flood. The Lord has given us the names of the just men of this age.
Abel was so called, and so was Enos, a man made to the image of God, who hoped to invoke the name
of the Lord God. Henoch, also, whose name in Latin means ‘grace of God,’ was carried
up to heaven, [ Gen 5:24 ] and Noe, who was a just man [ Gen 6:9 ] and one who might be called a
guide to tranquillity.[Cf. Isidore, Etym. 7.6:15]

The second age of the world is that of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob, and a number of other
patriarchs. This was a period in which religion flourished in its more temperate and purest form.
Pure was Isaac, a son given to Abraham according to promise, not as an offering of the body, but
as a gift of divine beneficence. In him there is found the figure of Him who is pure as the
Apostle teaches. ‘The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.’ [
Gal 3:16 ] He does not say, “And to his offsprings,” but as of one, “And to thy
offspring,” who is Christ.’16

The third age lies in the period of the Law of Moses and in the time of the other Apostles.
‘For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, of Barac, of Samson, of David and of Samuel,
Elias and Elisaeus, who by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained promises, stopped
the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, recovered
strength from weakness, became valiant in battle and captured the camps of aliens.’ [ Heb
11:32-34 ] Not without reason, then, do these men stand as types of fortitude. Further on we are
told: ‘They were sawed asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword.
They went about in goatskins, destitute, distressed, afflicted--of whom the world was not
worthy--wandering in deserts, mountains, caves and holes in the earth.’ [ Heb 11:37,38
] Appropriately, therefore, do we set these men down as types of Fortitude.

The figure of Justice is, according to the Gospel, a meritorious one, because ‘it is
unto salvation to everyone who believes.’ [ Rom 1:16 ] Hence, the Lord Himself says:
‘Permit us to fulfill all justice.’ [ Matt 3:15 ] She is truly the prolific
parent of the other virtues. Yet, whoever possesses any of the above-mentioned principal virtues
has the other virtues, also, since these virtues are so connected as to form a unit. Surely,
Abel, a just and courageous man, Abraham, a man of great patience, the Prophets, men of the
greatest wisdom, and Moses, a man of great learning, considered that the ingloriousness of Christ
brought far greater honor than the treasures of Egypt. Who was wiser than Daniel? Solomon, too,
sought wisdom and merited it. [ 1 Kings 3:8 ] Enough has been said, therefore, on the subject of
the four rivers of virtue whose waters are salutary. We have discussed, too, the reason why
Phison is said to have not only the gold, but also the ruby and the topaz stone, of that goodly
land. We propose now to develop the latter topic.

Since Enos in his wisdom yearned to know the name of God, he seems to us to stand for gold
that is good. [ Gen 4:26: 5:24 ] Henoch, who was borne aloft and did not see death, can be
likened to a ruby stone of pleasant odor which holy Henoch by his works offered to God, thus
exhaling in his active and exemplary life something akin to sweetness. Noe, on the other hand,
like the green topaz stone, suggests a color which represents life, since he alone at the time of
the Flood preserved in his ark the vital seed of the formation of the world to come. Paradise, a
land watered by many rivers, is then appropriately situated in the East and not in the regions
facing it. This reference to the East is significant, for the rising sun may be compared to
Christ [ Matt 24:27 ] who flashed forth a gleam of eternal light which exists in Eden, that is,
in a land of delight.

‘And God took the man whom he has created and placed him
in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.’ [ Gen 2:15 ] Note, now, the person who
was taken and the land where he was formed. The virtue of God, therefore, took man and breathed
into him, so that man’s virtue will advance and increase. God set him apart in Paradise
that you may know that man was taken up, that is to say, was breathed upon by the power of God.
Note the fact that man was created outside Paradise, whereas woman was made within it. This
teaches us that each person acquires grace by reason of virtue, not because of locality or of
race. Hence, although created outside Paradise, that is, in an inferior place, man is found to be
superior, whereas woman, created in a better place, that is to say, in Paradise, is found to be
inferior. She was first to be deceived and was responsible for deceiving the man. Wherefore the
Apostle Paul has related that holy women have in olden times been subject to the stronger vessel
and recommends them to obey their husbands as their masters. [ 1 Peter 3:1 ] And Paul says:
‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin.’ [ 1 Tim
2:14 ] This is a warning that no one ought to rely on himself, for she who was made for
assistance needs the protection of a man. [ Gen 2:18 ] The head of the woman is man, who, while
he believed that he would have the assistance of his wife, fell because of her. [ 1 Cor 11:3 ]
Wherefore, no one ought to entrust himself lightly to another unless he has first put that
person’s virtue to the test. Neither should he claim for himself in the role of protector
one whom he believes is subservient to him. Rather, a person should share his grace with another.
Especially is this true of one who is in the position of greater strength and one who plays the
part of protector. We have advice of the Apostle Peter, wherein he recommends that husbands pay
honor to their wives: ‘Husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives considerately,
paying honor to the woman as to the weaker vessel and as co-heir of the grace of life that your
prayers be not hindered.’ [ 1 Peter 3:7 ]

Therefore man was placed in Paradise, while the woman was created in Paradise. The woman, even
before she was deceived by the serpent, shared grace with a man, since she was taken from a man.
Yet ’this is a great mystery,’ [ Eph. 5:32 ] as the Apostle said. Wherefore he
traced the source of life from it. And so Scripture refers only to man in the words: ‘He
placed him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.’ [ Gen 2:15 ] The act of
tilling and the act of keeping are one and the same thing. In tilling there is a certain exercise
of man’s virtue, while in keeping it is understood that the work is accomplished, for
protection implies something completed. These two acts are required of man. In this way, it is
generally assumed, man can seek after something new and may keep what he has acquired. Philo, on
the other hand, limited in his interpretation of this Scriptural passage to its moral aspect,
since, because of his Jewish tendencies, he did not understand its spiritual import. He
maintained that the two aspects were those of tilling the fields and of protecting the home.
Although, he said, Paradise did not require labor in the fields, the first man, even in Paradise,
undertook a kind of toil so as to furnish a law for future ages by which to bind us to the
performance and to the preservation of our bounden duty and to the function of supporting
hereditary succession.[Cf. Philo, Quaestiones in Gen 1:14] Both these point of view, the moral
and the spiritual, are exacted of you. The prophetic psalm instructs you regarding this:
‘Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep
the city, they watch in vain that keepeth it.’ [ Ps 126:1 ] It is obvious that the
laborers are those who engage in the actual operation of building, while the watchers are those
to whom the duty of protecting the perfected work is entrusted. Hence the Lord said to the
Apostles, as if they were on the point of perfecting their work: ‘Watch and pray that
you may not enter into temptation.’ [ Matt 26:41 ] By this He meant that the function
of a nature that was perfected along with the grace of abundant virtue should be preserved and
that no one, even one who has attained some perfection, ought to feel really secure of himself
unless he remains vigilant.

‘And the Lord God commanded the man thus:
‘from every tree of the garden thou shalt eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, you shall not eat, for the day you eat of it you shall die.’ [ Gen 2:16 ] Why did
He use the singular ‘thou shalt eat’ when He bade them eat of every tree, and, again,
when He bade them eat of the tree of good and evil, why did He use the plural ‘You shall
not eat'? This is no trifling question. This problem can, in fact, be solved by the authority of
the Scriptures if you study them carefully. Scripture refers to something good and something that
should be done. What is good is naturally associated with what should be done. On the other hand,
what is base is separate and unrelated to what should be done. And so the Lord, aiming always at
oneness, gave orders in accordance with this principle. Hence He achieves oneness who
‘has made both one' [ Eph 2:14 ] --He not only made both one, for He bade us to be
‘one body and one Spirit.’ [ Eph 4:4 ] ‘The first-born of every
creature,’ [ Col 1:15 ] since He is in union with the faith, is always closely joined
to the Father, because ’the Word was with God.’ [ John 1:1 ] Wherefore He
says: ‘I and the Father are one,’ [ John 10:30 ] in order to show His union
with the Father in majesty and in dignity. But He bade us to be one and transfused into us by the
adoption of grace the likeness of His own nature and His own oneness, saying: ‘Father,
that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and thou in me.’ [ John 17:22 ]
When He prescribes a good, therefore, He does it to one person, saying, ‘Thou shalt
eat,’ for the oneness cannot be gainsaid. Where, however, He says that the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil should not be tasted, He speaks in effect to several people:
‘You shall not eat.’ What has been prohibited has general application to
several people. But I have another opinion on this matter. I am able to discover the meaning of
what we are discussing in the very words of God Himself. Adam alone was bidden to taste of every
tree and it was foreseen that he would follow that injunction. In the plural sense, and not in
the singular, God sees that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil should not be tasted. He
knew that the woman would sin. Thus, by using the plural, God points out that they will not
follow the injunction, because, where there are many, there are differences of opinion.

If we look into the sense of the words as expressed in the Septuagint [plural form, Vulgate
has singular] the meaning is clear. Symmachus, however, takes both expressions in a singular
sense. This is explained by the fact that in the Law, God, addressing His people, uses the
singular: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord’ and ‘Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God.’ [ Deut 6:4,5 ] I am not influenced by the interpretation of
Symmachus, who could not see the oneness of the Father and Son, although at times both he and
Asylas admitted it in their discussions. The fact that God addresses in the singular number a
people who will later contravene His commands should not lead us to think that I am dissenting
from my former statement, inasmuch as the Jewish people, regarded as a single person, violated
the injunctions imposed upon them. We have here a law of the Spirit whereby God addresses the
people in divine language. In this case we should consider not so much the words as their
prophetic import. Wherefore He says: ‘Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of his
dam.’ [ Exod 34:26 ]

From this point on, the celestial precepts present no great difficulty. However, there has
been raised by several authors a question which we ought to answer lest simple minds be led
astray by erroneous interpretation. Many authors, like Apelles in his thirty-eighth
volume,[Apelles; cf. Harnack TU 6.3:116]propose the following questions. How is it, for
example, that the tree of life has more power for giving life than the breath of God? Again, if
man is not made perfect by God and each person acquired by his own effort a more perfect state of
virtue for himself, does it not seem that man would gain for himself more than God had bestowed
on him? Then they make the objection that, if man had not tasted death, he certainly could not be
aware of what he had not tasted. What man had not tasted was something unknown to him.
Accordingly, he could not be afraid of that of which he had no knowledge. To no purpose,
therefore, did God inflict death as a punishment on men for whom it holds no fear.

We should be aware of the fact, therefore, that where God has planted a tree of life. He has
also planted a tree of life in the midst of Paradise. It is understood that He planted it in the
middle. Therefore, in the middle of Paradise there was both a tree of life and a cause for death.
Keep in mind that man did not create life. By carrying out and observing the precepts of God it
was possible for man to find life. This was the life mentioned by the Apostle: ‘Your
life is hidden with Christ in God.’ [ Col 3:3 ] Man, therefore was, figuratively
speaking, either in the shadow of life--because our life on earth is but a shadow--or man had
life, as it were, in pledge, for he had been breathed on by God. He had, therefore, a pledge of
immortality, but while in the shadow of life he was unable, by the usual channels of sense, to
see and attain the hidden life of Christ with God. Although not yet a sinner, he was not
possessed of an incorrupt and inviolable nature. Of course, one who afterwards lapsed into sin
was far from being as yet in the category of sinner. Hence, he was in the shadow of life, whereas
sinners are in the shadow of death. According to Isaias, the people who sinned sat in the shadow
of death. [ Isa 9:2 ] For these a light arose, not by the merits of their virtues, but by the
grace of God. There is no distinction, therefore, between the breath of God and the food of the
tree of life. No man can say that he can acquire more by his own efforts than what is granted him
by the generosity of God. Would that we had been able to hold on to what we had received! Our
toils avail only to the extent that we take back again what was once conferred on us. The third
objection, that one who has not tasted death cannot fear it, finds its solution in our common
experience. There is an instinct innate in all living creatures which impels them to dread even
what they have not yet experienced as harmful. Why is it that doves, even at the moment of their
birth, are terrorized at the sight of a hawk? Why are wolves dreaded by sheep and hawks by
chickens? In irrational animals there is a certain innate fear of creatures of a different
species to the extent that, even though these animals are irrational, they have a feeling that
death is something to be shunned. Such being the case, how true is it that the first man, fully
and indubitably endowed with reason, should be conscious of the fact that death is something to
be avoided!

There are some, again, who suggest for solution difficulties such as the following. For
example, they maintain that refusal to obey an order is not always wrong. If the order is a good
one, then the act of obeying is commendable. But if the order is a wicked one, it is not feasible
to obey it. Therefore, it is not always wrong to disobey an order, but it is wrong to refuse to
obey an order that is good. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a creation that is
good, since God had knowledge of good and evil. Hence He says: ‘Indeed! The man has
become like one of us.’ [ Gen 3:23 ] If, therefore, possessing the knowledge of good
and evil is good and if what God has is a good, it would appear that the prohibition to prevent
man from making use of it is not a righteous one. Such is their argument. But, if they were to
realize the real significance and force of the word ‘knowledge’ as they should--
‘The Lord knew who belong to him,’ [ Num 16:5 ] that is, He knew those surely
among whom He dwells and walks, who were made one out of so many--then certainly these people
would know that knowledge is not to be interpreted merely as superficial comprehension, but as
the carrying out of what ought to be accomplished. Man ought to obey the command. A failure to
obey is a violation of duty. The man, therefore, who disobeys falls into error because violation
of duty is a sin. Even if these people should agree to a modified meaning of the word
‘knowledge’ and consider that an imperfect comprehension of good and evil was
prohibited, in that respect, too, there is a violation of duty in not complying with the command.
The Lord God has made it clear that even an imperfect comprehension of good and evil should be
prohibited.

Another problem: The man who does not know good and evil differs in no respect from a little
child. A judge who is just does not consider a child to be guilty of crime. The just Creator of
the world would never have found fault with a child for his lack of knowledge of good and evil,
because a child cannot be charged with a violation of a law. In the preceding passage, however,
we have said that, once you accept the fact that there is a knowledge that is imperfect, then
knowledge of good and evil may be taken in two senses. It is certainly false to hold that the man
who does not know good and evil is not different from a child. If it is wrong to maintain that
such a man does not differ from a child, then Adam is not to be thought of as a child. If he was
not a child, then surely he is liable to sin, inasmuch as he is not a child. If he is subject to
sin, then punishment follows the sin, because the man who cannot avoid sin is reckoned to be
liable to punishment. It can even happen that the person who has no knowledge of good and evil
may not be a child: ‘For before the child knew good and evil, he refused the
evil.’ [ Isa 7:16 ] Again we read: ‘For before the child knew to call his
father and mother, he will receive the strength of Damascus and the toils of Samaria.’
[ Isa 8:4 ] Perfect, therefore, is the man who performs a good deed even if he has not attained
the knowledge of good and evil, just as ’many are a law to themselves' [ Rom 2:14 ]
even before they know the Law. Was the Apostle before he learned: ‘Thou shalt not
lust,’ quite unaware that concupiscence was a sin? On this point he says: ‘I did not
know sin save through the Law. For I had not known lust unless the Law had said, “Thou
shalt not lust.”' [ Exod 20:17; Rom 7:7 ] Even a child can become by the law of nature
perfect in that respect before he knows that concupiscence is a sin or admit the sin of
concupiscence. Hence, God willed that man know the nature of evil in a superficial fashion lest,
being imperfect, he may be unable to avoid evil. By not obeying a command we are subject to
blame. We are thus led to admit our error. Again, if we are referring to a very profound
knowledge of good and evil which in itself makes for perfection [Schenkl points to a lacuna in
the manuscript here] a little child is not, like a grown-up, immediately to be chastised, because
he has not yet reached a capacity to understand.

Again, more criticisms crop up.[From Apelles; cf. Harnack, op. cit ] There is the
objection that a person who does not know good and evil is unaware that disobedience to a command
is in itself an evil, nor is he aware that obedience to a command is itself a good. Hence it is
argued that the person who is in this respect ignorant is deserving, not of condemnation, but of
pardon. What we have already maintained above presents a ready solution to this problem. Man is
capable of realizing that the utmost deference should be given to his Maker because of what God
had already conferred on him, namely, the fact that God had breathed on him and that he was
placed in the Garden of Delight. Wherefore, if he was ignorant of the meaning of good and evil.
Nevertheless, since the Creator of such mighty things had declared that one should not eat of the
tree of good and evil, loyal adherence should be given to Him who gave the command. It was not a
question of technical knowledge, but of fidelity. He certainly was aware that God was in a
position of preeminence and, as such, heed should be paid to His command. Although he did not
understand the precise significance of the commands, he was conscious of the fact that deference
should be paid to the person of the Commander. This conviction on his part stemmed from nature.
He was as yet incapable of discriminating between good and evil. Wherefore the woman answers the
serpent: ‘Of the fruit of all the trees in the garden we shall eat, but of the fruit in
the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it.’ [ Gen 3:2,3 ] She knew,
therefore, that the command must be obeyed. Hence she said: We shall eat of every fruit which the
Lord ordered, but God has given an order that one should not eat of the tree in the middle of the
Garden, lest he die. Wherefore, she who knew that the command should be obeyed was surely aware
that it was wrong not to comply with the command and that she would be justly condemned for her
refusal to obey.

One more point. The circumstances connected with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
were such as to convince us that both good and evil were recognized. We are led to believe from
the evidence of Scripture that such was the case: ‘When they both ate, their eyes were
opened and they realized that they were naked,’ [ Gen 3:6,7 ] that is, the eyes of
their mind were opened and they realized the shame of being naked. For that reason, when the
woman ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil she certainly sinned and realized that
she had sinned. On realizing this, she should not have invited her husband to share in her sin.
By enticing him and by giving him what she herself had tasted she did not nullify her sin;
rather, she repeated it. Certainly it stands to reason that she did intend to lure the person
whom she loved to share in her punishment. She should be expected to ward off from one who was
unaware of it the danger of falling into a sin of which she had knowledge. Yet this woman,
knowing that she could not remain in Paradise after the Fall, seems to have had a fear that she
alone would be ejected from the Garden. Hence, after the Fall, they both went into hiding. Being
aware, therefore, that she would have to be separated from the man she loved, she had no desire
to be deceived.

Another point. Knowledge of evil does not make evil. An act is necessary to complete its
conditions. There is no immediate connection between the knower of what is evil and the doer. He
is guilty who does what he knows to be evil. Either anger or cupidity is the customary means of
arousing a person to perform an evil act. It does not necessarily follow that one who has
knowledge of evil, unless he is the victim of anger or cupidity, will do what he knows is wrong.
To repeat what we have said, the incentives to sin are anger and cupidity. To these we may add
extreme fear, which itself may give rise to cupidity, inasmuch as everyone is anxious to avoid
what is the cause of his fear. With reason, therefore, have we established that the incentives to
the other vices are anger and cupidity. Let us consider, then, whether Eve was aroused to
wrong-doing by these incentives. She was not angry with her consort. She was not a victim of
cupidity. Again, she merely erred in giving her husband to eat of what she had already tasted.
Cupidity had been at first responsible for her error in inducing him to eat and it was the
occasion for the subsequent sin. This can be explained in the following way. She was unable to
desire what she had already eaten and, after eating she acquired a knowledge of evil. She ought
not, therefore, have made her husband a partaker of the evil of which she was conscious; neither
should she have caused her own husband to violate the divine command. She sinned, therefore, with
forethought, and knowingly made her husband a participant in her own wrong-doing. If it were not
so, what is related of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be found to be in error, if
it were established that, after she ate of that tree, she was without knowledge of evil. But, if
what Scripture says is true, cupidity was the motive of her act. Many, however, are of the
opinion that she should be excused for the reason that, because she loved her husband, she was
afraid that she would be separated from him. They offer this as grounds for her cupidity: namely,
that she desired to be with her husband.

Still another problem arises.[From Apelles: cf. Harnack. op. cit. ] From what source
did death come to Adam? Was it from the nature of a tree of this sort or actually from God? If we
ascribe this to the nature of the tree, then the fruit of this tree seems to be superior to the
vivifying power of the breath of God, since its fruit had drawn into death’s toils him on
whom the divine breath had bestowed life. If we maintain that God is the responsible cause of
death, then we can be held to accuse Him of inconsistency. We seem to accuse Him of being so
devoid of beneficence as to be unwilling to pardon when He had the power to do so, or of being
powerless if He was unable to forgive. Let us see, therefore, how this question can be resolved.
The solution, unless I am mistaken, lies in the fact that, since disobedience was the cause of
death, for that very reason, not God, but man himself, was the agent of his own death. If, for
example, a physician were to prescribe to a patient what he thought should be avoided, and if the
patient felt that these prohibitions were unnecessary, the physician is not responsible for the
patient’s death. Surely in that case the patient is guilty of causing his own death. Hence,
God as a good physician forbade Adam to eat what would be injurious to him.

Another point. To know what is good is better than to be ignorant of it. It is fitting that a
person who knows what is good know, also, what is evil, in order that he may know the means to
avoid it and, by taking the necessary precautions, that he may act with discretion. Again, it is
not sufficient to know merely what is evil, lest, although you know what is evil, you may find
yourself deprived of what is good. It is best, therefore, that we know both so that, since we
know what is good, we may avoid evil. Again, from the fact that we are aware of evil we may give
our preference to the charm of what is good. Moreover, we ought to know both so that our
knowledge may be profound and so that we may put in practice what we know, act and acknowledge to
be in perfect balance. Besides, Scripture points out that more is expected of him who has general
knowledge of both than of him who is ignorant of them. [ Luke 13:47,48 ] Knowledge of what you
cannot achieve or avoid is a grievous thing. Grievous, too, is knowledge which is not put into
practice and into operation to its fullest extent. Without knowledge of what is harmful or
beneficial to a patient and without the power of being able to utilize to the best advantage that
knowledge, a physician is likely to act in such a way as to lose his reputation. Hence, knowledge
is not salutary unless it is put into practice in the best possible way.

Still another point. Not without reason was the tree of knowledge of good and evil grown in
the middle of the Garden, and the prohibition against it was unnecessary if it was grown for each
and every man. This tree was designed for the use of just one man, who received the command that
he make use not only of that tree, but of the other trees besides. You can find many, even
countless, instances in which a person can, because of ignorance of procedure, suffer real harm.
Wealth itself will be found to be unprofitable to a rich man if he refuses to set in a generous
fashion toward the poor. He may shut out the needy and deprive them of assistance and, because of
his superior powers, he may extort for his own purpose what belongs to another. The very
possession of beauty and of physical charm is more likely than deformity to lead one to vice. For
that reason, therefore, does anyone desire to have children who are unsightly rather than
handsome? Or desire their offspring to be poverty-stricken rather than well-to-do? There are many
instances of this sort which are not to be ascribed to the lack of wisdom in the giver, but to
the person who misuses the gifts. The fault lies not so much in the person who makes the gifts as
in the person who makes use of them.

Another problem.[From Apelles] Did God know that Adam would violate His commands? Or was He
unaware of it? If He did not know, we are faced with a limitation of His divine power. If He
knew, yet gave a command which He was aware would be ignored, it is not God’s providence to
give an unnecessary order. It was in the nature of a superfluous act to give to Adam, the first
created being, a command which He knew would not at all be observed. But God does nothing
superfluous. Therefore, the words of Scripture do not come from God. This is the objection of
those who do not, by interposing these questions, admit the authenticity of the Old Testament.
But these people are to be condemned out of their own mouths. Since these same persons concede
the authenticity of the New Testament, they must be convinced by evidence to believe in the Old.
If they see that God is consistent in His commands and in His deeds, it is clear that they must
concede that both Testaments are the work of one Author. The following example should convince
them that a command to one who will disobey is not something superfluous or unjust. The Lord
Himself chose Judas, one who, He knew, would betray Him. If these men think that he was chosen
unwisely, they restrict the power of God. But they cannot hold this opinion, since Scripture
declares: ‘For Jesus knew who it was who should betray him.’ [ John 6:65 ]
These defamers of the Old Testament should therefore hold their peace.

Possible objections on the part of the Gentiles who do not admit this evidence stand in need
of a response. Since the Gentiles demand a rational explanation, here is the reason why the Son
of God either gave a command to one who is going to disobey it or has chosen one who is going to
betray Him. The Lord Jesus came to save all sinners. [ Luke 19:10 ] He was bound to show concern
even for the wicked. Accordingly, He was bound not to disregard one who was to betray Him. He
wished that all might take note that in the choice even of His betrayer He was offering a sign
for the salvation of all of us. No injury was done to Adam in that he received a command, or to
Judas because he was chosen. God did not lay it down as a necessary consequence that one should
disobey and the other should betray Him. Both could have abstained from sin if they had guarded
what they had received. Hence, although He knew that all the Jews would not believe, He stated:
‘I have not come except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ [ Matt
15:24 ] The fault is, therefore, not in the one issuing the command; the sin is rather in the one
who disobeys. God’s intent was this: He wanted to show to everyone that He willed to give
freedom to all mankind. I do not mean to maintain that He did not know of the disobedience to
come. Rather, I contend that He did know, but that He should not for that reason be subject to
reproach for a betrayer who met death. God should not be accused of being the cause why both
lapsed. In fact, both stand convicted and condemned, because one received a command not to fall
into sin, and the other was enrolled among the Apostles in order that he, as the result of
kindness, might change his intention to betray. At some time in the future when the other
Apostles would be found wanting, he might well become a source of comfort to all. In effect,
there would not exist any sin if there were no prohibition. Without the existence of sin there
would be no such thing as wrong-doing or, perhaps, even virtue, which could not have any cause
for existence or for pre-eminence without the aid of unrighteousness to offset it. What is sin,
if not the violation of divine law and the disobedience to heavenly precepts? Not by the ear, but
by the mind, do we form a judgment regarding injunction from above. But with the Word of God
before us we are able to formulate opinions on what is good and what is evil. One of these we
naturally understand should be, as evil, avoided, and the other we understand has been
recommended to us as a good. In this respect we seem to be listening to the very voice of the
Lord, whereby some things are forbidden and other things are advised. If a person does not comply
with the injunctions which are believed to have been once ordained by God, he is considered to be
liable to punishment. The commands of God are impressed in our hearts by the Spirit of the living
God. We do not read these orders as if they were recorded in ink on a tablet of stone. [ 2 Cor
3:3 ] Hence, in our own thought we formulate a law: ‘For if the Gentiles who have no law
do by nature what the law prescribes, those having no law of this kind are a law unto
themselves. They show the work of the law written in their hearts.’ [ Rom 2:14,15 ] There
is something, therefore, like the Law of God which exists in the hearts of men.

These same people raise another objection. Instead of that command which we said was
established in the mind of man, they would maintain that this very impression in our minds by God
was itself the prescription of a divine law. The question is raised: Did the Creator of man know
that man would fall into sin and so implanted those opinions of what is good and evil in the mind
of man or was He unaware that this would happen? If you concede that He did not know of it, you
attribute to God something alien to His majesty. If, on the other hand, you maintain that,
although God was aware that man would sin, He impressed in man’s mind a realization of what
is good and evil, so that he would be unable, because of the admixture of evil, to live
forever-then in one case you imply that God was not prescient and in the other that He was not
beneficent. From this the conclusion is reached that man was not the creation of God. We have
already stated that these men maintain that God had not imposed a command. Now they say that man
was not created by God, because God did not create evil. Man, on the other hand, had a mental
conception of evil, inasmuch as he was enjoined to abstain from evil. In this way they venture to
assert that there were two gods: one who is good; the other, the Creator of man. We must follow
the lines of their own logic in formulating our reply. If they hold that man was not made by God,
because man is a sinner, and if they recoil from conceding this point, lest a good God may not
seem to the creator of sinners (because they do not believe that God is good who made a sinner) ,
then let them declare whether this artificer of man has in their opinion also been made by
God?

If, as they state, this artificer of man was created by God, how can it be possible that a God
who is good is also the agent of evil? If the creator of a sinner is not good, then more serious
implications result if we postulate the maker of him who is the artificer of a sinner. A God who
is good is bound to prevent the birth of him who shall have to introduce the substance of sin.
But if they maintain that this artificer was not created, than the problem arises as to whether a
God who is good could or could not in any way prevent the growth of evil. If such a God cannot do
this, then He is powerless. Inasmuch as such inconsistencies follow our line of argumentation and
since the heretics get involved here, also, let us attempt a solution of the problem of why God
allowed adversity to enter into this world through an artificer who either did or did not spring
from Him, although He had the power to prevent it.

Accordingly, while still holding that the God who is good and the one who is the artificer are
one and the same, let us make clear what are the provinces of each. We should at the same time
try to meet the objections of those who raise such a question as this: How is it possible that a
God who is good has permitted not only adversity to enter this world but has allowed it, too, to
be in such a state of disorder? [From Apelles] In truth, this objection would be valid only if
this evil so affected the nature of our soul and the secret places of our hearts that riddance
was impossible and if, again, this poison had left such deep wounds in our hearts and souls that
medication was of no avail. [Cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses 1:190] In fact, this grievance of
theirs could be more aptly expressed by stating that, although God is omnipotent, He has
permitted man to die. But since God in His pity has reserved for us the means of obtaining remedy
for our sins and still has not rid us of all possibilities of contagion, then let us reflect on
the following points. Would it be an unjust and unreasonable act if God, fearful, as it were, of
man’s frailty and mortality, permitted us to be tempted in such wise that, through
penitence for our sins, grace compounded would return once more to our hearts? Again, would it be
unjust if man, conscious and fearful of his own frailty (since he found that he could so easily
deviate from the orderly path of divine commands) and fearful, too, lest he let loose these
heavenly mandates which like a helm guide his soul--would it be unjust if man should finally
attribute the recovery of the helm to divine pity and by his safe return acquire some grace as
well?

Now let us investigate the reason why God considered that a command should be given concerning
the two classes of trees: the one to be eaten and the other which it was forbidden to eat. Thus,
He laid down to man injunctions on the ways of attaining that wonderful and happy life, following
which he might not have to suffer death. There are some who think that is was [Note: text error?
should be it was -CA] totally inappropriate for the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things
to lay down that command and that it was definitely unsuited to the inhabitants of Paradise,
because life there was like that of the angels. And so we can conclude that the food provided for
eating there was not earthly and corruptible, because those who do not drink or eat
‘will be as the angels in heaven.’ [ ] There is no merit, therefore, in food,
because food does not commend us to God. Neither is there great danger therein, because
‘what goes into the mouth does not defile a man but it is what comes out of the
mouth.’ [ Matt 22:30; 15:11 ] Undoubtedly, then, it would appear that the precept [is
quite unworthy] of such a great Creator unless you take this food to mean prophetic food, because
as a great reward the Lord makes this promise to His saints: ‘Behold my servants shall
eat and you shall be hungry.’ [ Isa 65:13 ] This is the food that makes for eternal
life. Whoever is deprived of this will suffer death, since the Lord Himself is the living and
heavenly Bread which gives life to this world. Hence He speaks: ‘Unless you eat my flesh
and drink my blood you shall not have life eternal.’ [ John 6:50; cf. 6:54 ] The bread
was, therefore, meant for a certain person. Instructions were given that it should be eaten b[y]
the inhabitants of Paradise. Who is that person? We are told who that person is: ‘Man
ate the bread of angels.’ [ Ps 77:25 ] The bread is good if you do the will of God. Do
you wish to know how good that bread was? The Son of God Himself eats of that bread of which He
says: ‘My food is to do the will of my father who is in heaven.’ [ John 4:34
]

Again, let us see why the Lord God said to Adam: ‘Ye shall
die the death.’ [ Gen 2:17 ] What is the difference between saying ‘ye shall
die’ and ‘ye shall die the death'? We ought to point out that there is nothing
superfluous in the command of God. Here is my solution. Since life and death are contradictory
ideas, in unaffected language we say ‘we live in life’ and ‘die in
death.’ But, if you wish, since life causes life, to double the force of the two concepts,
the phrase ‘he lives a life’ is found in legal documents, and, since death causes
death, there is the statement: ‘He shall die the death.’ [ Ezek 33:14-16 ]
These expressions are not redundant, for life is related to death and death to life, because
everyone living no law of this kind are a law unto themselves. They show therefore, four
categories: to live in life, to die in death, to die in life, to live in death. Since such is the
case, we should put aside prejudices due to use and custom, for usage prescribes that the act of
dying should be said without distinction of him who dies by death and of him who does so by his
life. Accordingly, the Lord selects two of these four distinctive phrases so as to say that the
living live, with qualifications as to whether well or ill, and the dying die, without a seeming
difference between a good death and a bad one. There is no precise difference in fact between the
kind of life or death here referred to. It could include that of irrational creatures or of tiny
infants.

Putting aside, therefore, conceptions due to common usage, let us reflect on the meaning of
‘to live in life’ and ‘to die in death’ and also ‘to live in
death’ and ‘to die in life.’ I believe that, in accord with the Scriptures,
‘to live in life’ signifies a wonderful life of happiness and that it seems to point
toward an experience of life’s natural functions joined and, by participation, mingled with
the grace of a blessed life. This concept, ‘to live in life,’ means ‘to live in
virtue,’ to bring about in the life of this body of ours a participation in the life of
blessedness. On the other hand, what does ‘to die in death’ mean if not the
disintegration of the body at the time of death, when the flesh is devoid of its customary
function of carrying on life and the soul is unable to partake in life eternal? There is also the
person who ‘dies in life,’ that is to say, one who is alive in body but, because of
his acts, is dead. These are the people who, as the Prophet says: ‘Go down alive into
hell,’ [ Ps 54:16 ] and she of whom the Apostle speaks: ‘For she is dead while
she is still alive.’ [ 1 Tim 5:6 ] There remains the fourth category, for there are
those who ‘live in death’ like the holy martyrs who give up their lives so that they
may live. The flesh dies, but what is good does survive. Far from us, therefore, be the thought
of living as participants in death. On the contrary, we should face death and thus become sharers
in life. The saint does not desire to be a participant in this life of ours when he states:
‘To be dissolved and be with Christ.’ [ Phil 1:23 ] This has been much better
stated by another: ‘Woe to me that my sojourning has been prolonged,’ [ Ps
119:5 ] in grief certainly that he is limited by the fragility of this life, since he hopes for a
share in life eternal. Wherefore I can, on the other hand, state that, although ‘to live in
life’ is a good thing, ‘to live for life’ would be of doubtful benefit. One can
speak of ‘living for life,’ that is, for the life of eternity with its struggle with
the life of the body. One can also speak of ‘living for life’ in another sense.
Anyone, even a pious person, can have a desire for this corporeal life of ours. We can take the
example of one who thinks that he ought to live so virtuously as to arrive by his good actions at
a ripe old age. Many people who are in weak health, but who still find life a pleasurable thing,
are in this category.

Now that we have examined the meaning of the phrase, ‘to live for life,’ let us
now turn attention to the significance of the phrases, ‘to die for death’ and
‘to live for death,’ for it is possible to conceive of people who ‘die for
death’ and who ‘live for life.’ For the person who ‘dies for or to
death’ is one who so lives as to live for the sake of his own soul, because he is not
subject to death. We mean by this one who has been loosed from the bonds of grievous death and
one who is not bound by the chains of death eternal. He is dead to death, that is, he is dead to
sin. He is dead to punishment for whom living is contrary to punishment, that is, when a person
lives for punishment he lives for death. Again, one who dies for punishment dies for death. There
is also the case of one who, although placed in this life, dies for life. Such was the situation
of the Apostle who said: ‘It is now no longer I that live, but Christ in me.’
[ Gal 2:20 ] To sin he is dead, but he lives for God, that is, death in him is dead, but living
in him is that life which is the Lord Jesus. Good, therefore, is the life of those who live for
God and wicked the life of those who live for sin. There is also a middle course of life, as in
the case of other living creatures, for which we may cite the Scriptural passage: ‘Let
the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind.’ [ Gen 1:24 ] There is also the
life of the dead: ‘The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,’
[ Exod 3:6 ] because ‘He is not the God of the dead but of the living.’ [ Luke
20:37, Mark. 12:26 ] There are those who partake somewhat in both lives, that of the living and
of the dead, of whom the Apostle speaks: ‘If ye have died with him, ye shall also live
with him.’ [ 2 Tim 2:11 ] The same Apostle has said: ‘For if we have been
united with him in the likeness of death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection
also. For we know that our old self has been crucified with him, in order that the body of sin
may be destroyed, that we may no longer be slaves to sin, for he who is dead is acquitted of
sin.’ [ Rom 6:5-8 ] Just as we have said that there are many forms of life, so, too, we
may discover many forms of death. An evil death is recorded in the words, ‘The soul that
sinneth, the same shall die.’ [ Ezek 18:20 ] The usual meaning of death appears when we
say that a person lived so many years and was laid among his fathers. [ Acts 13:36 ] There is the
meaning of death as we have it in the sacrament of baptism: ‘For we were buried with him
by means of baptism into death.’ [ ] Elsewhere we read: ‘For if we have died
with Christ, we believe also that we shall live together with him.’ [ Rom 6:4,8 ] You
see how the word ‘death’ is subject to manifold interpretation, but that this life
here is ours to contend with.

Still another question arises, that concerning the saying of the
Lord: ‘It is not good for man to be alone.’ [ Gen 2:18 ] Recognize the fact,
first of all, that, when God created man from the slime of the earth, He did not add:
‘God saw that it was good,’ [ Gen 1:14 ] as He did in the case of each of His
works. If He had said at that time that the creation of man was good, then the other statement
that ‘it is not good’ would be a contradiction in terms, although He had said that
the creation of what preceded the formation of man was good. That was the situation at the time
of the creation of Adam. But, when He perceived that man and woman were joined together in
creation, He did not treat each even then in a special manner, for He soon after states:
‘God saw that all he had ever made was very good.’ [ Gen 1:31 ] [NOTE: orig. text
does not end quote -CA] The meaning is clear. The creation of both man and woman is considered to
be good.

From this question another problem arises. How did it happen that, when Adam alone was
created, it was not said that it was good, but when a woman also was made, then are we to
understand that everything was good? Whereas God in one case commended the whole of creation, as
well as every creature in it (including man who is held to be a part of nature), a special
reference to man did not then seem necessary. Wherefore, when Adam alone was created, an
assertion that this work was good was not thought to be by any means a fitting climax to a
satisfactory achievement. It was said, moreover, that it was not good for man to be alone. Yet we
know that Adam did not commit sin before woman was created. However, after creation, she was the
first to disobey the divine command and even allured her husband to sin. If, therefore, the woman
is responsible for the sin, how then can her accession be considered a good? But, if you consider
that the universe is in the care of God, then you will discover this fact, namely, that the Lord
must have gained more pleasure for Himself in being responsible for all creation than
condemnation from us for providing the basis for sin. Accordingly, the Lord declared that is was
[NOTE: should be it was? -CA] not good for man to be alone, because the human race could not have
been propagated from man alone. God preferred the existence of more than one whom He would be
able to save than to have to confine this possibility to one man who was free from error.
Inasmuch as He is the Author of both man and woman, He came into this world to redeem sinners.
Finally, He did not permit Cain, a man accused of parricide, to perish before he brought forth
sons. [ Gen 4:15-17 ] For the sake, therefore, of the successive generations of men it followed
that woman had to be joined to man. Thus we must interpret the very words of God when He said the
[NOTE: text wrong, should be that? -CA] it was not good for man to be alone. If the woman was to
be the first one to sin, the fact that she was the one destined to bring forth redemption must
not be excluded from the operations of Divine Providence. Although ‘Adam was not
deceived, the woman was deceived and was in sin.’ [ 1 Tim 2:14 ] Yet woman, we are
told, ‘will be saved by childbearing,’ 5 in the course of which she generated
Christ.

Not without significance, too, is the fact that woman was made out of the rib of Adam. She was
not made of the same earth with which he was formed, in order that we might realize that the
physical nature of both man and woman is identical and that there was one source for the
propagation of the human race. For that reason, neither was man created together with a woman,
nor were two men and two women created at the beginning, but first a man and after that a woman.
God willed it that human nature be established as one. Thus, from the very inception of the human
stock He eliminated the possibility that many disparate natures should arise. He said:
‘Let us make him a helper like himself.’ [ Gen 2:18 ] We understand that to
mean a helper in the generation of the human family--a really good helper. If we take the word
‘helper’ in a good sense, then the woman’s co-operation turns out to be
something of major import in the process of generation, just as the earth by receiving,
confining, and fostering the seed causes it to grow and produce fruit in time. In that respect,
therefore, woman is a good helper even through in an inferior position. We find examples of this
in our own experience. We see how men in high and important offices often enlist the help of men
who are below them in rank and esteem.

Examine, now, the reason why God had by this time created
out of the earth ‘all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air’ and
brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. How account for the fact that God brought
merely the beasts of the field and the birds of the air to Adam? Animals were there, we know,
each according to its kind. And so it is related further on: ‘Adam named all the animals
and all the beasts of the field, but he found no helper like himself.’ [ Gen 2:19,20 ]
How can we explain this other than by saying that the untamed beasts and the birds of the air
were brought to man by divine power, while man himself held power over the beasts that were tame
and domesticated? The former lay within the province of God’s activity. The latter were due
to the diligence of man. Besides this, there is a reason why everything was brought to Adam. In
this way he would be able to see that nature in every aspect is constituted of two sexes: male
and female. Following these observations, he would become aware that association with a woman was
a necessity of his lot.

‘And God cast Adam into a deep sleep and he
slept.’ [ Gen 2:21 ] What does the phrase ‘deep sleep’ signify? Does it not
mean that when we contemplate a conjugal union we seem to be turning our eyes gradually in the
direction of God’s kingdom? Do we not seem, as we enter into a vision of this world, to
partake a little of things divine, while we find our repose in the midst of what is secular and
mundane? Hence, after the statement, ‘He cast Adam into a deep sleep and he slept,’
there follows: ‘The rib which God took from Adam he built into a woman.’ [ Gen
2:21,22 ] The word ‘built’ is well chosen in speaking of the creation of a woman
because a household, comprising man and wife, seems to point toward a state of full perfection.
One who is without a wife is regarded as being without a home. As man is considered to be more
skillful in public duties, so woman is esteemed to be more adaptable to domestic ministrations.
Reflect on the fact that He did not take a part from Adam’s soul but a rib from his body,
that is to say, not soul from a soul, but ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh' [
Gen 2:23 ] will this woman be called.

Thus we have made clear the cause of the generation of man. But many who reflect deeply on
this question are disturbed by another problem. How explain the fact that animals and beasts of
the field and birds of the air were in Paradise, if at the beginning God bestowed this great gift
to men, namely, the privilege of living there and of expecting afterward that, as a reward of
merit, all just men should be restored to that place? Hence, many hold that by Paradise is meant
the soul of man and that, while man was placed there as a worker and guardian, certain seeds of
virtue sprouted forth. This may be taken to mean that the mind of man, whose virtue it is to
cultivate the soul intensively, not only performs its appropriate function, but also acts as a
custodian of the work accomplished. The beasts of the field and the birds of the air which were
brought to Adam are our irrational senses, because beasts and animals represent the diverse
emotions of the body, whether of the more violent kind or even of the more temperate. What else
are we to consider the birds of the air if not as representations of our idle thoughts which,
like winged creatures, flit around our souls and frequently lead us by their varied motions now
in one direction, now in another? Wherefore our faculty of perception, which in Greek is
represented by the word aithesis constitutes the most congenial aid to the work of our
minds. Except for our intellect [ nous ] the mind has been unable to find another faculty
so like itself.

Perhaps you may argue that God is Himself the Author of error, because He also placed in such
a Paradise entities such as these--I mean the passions of the body and the vanity of thoughts
that are fleeting and empty. Take note of what He says: ‘Have dominion over the fish of
the sea, the birds of the air and all the animals that crawl upon the earth.’ [ Gen
1:25 ] You see that He granted to you the power of being able to discern by the application of
sober logic the species of each and every object, in order that you may be induced to form a
judgment on all of them. God called them all to your attention, so that you might realize that
your mind is superior to all of them. Why have you now willed to make part of yourself and to
link close to you what you have discovered to be a totally alien substance? God surely has given
you a sense of perception, whereby you can know things in general and can form a judgment about
them. Because you were unable to observe God’s commands you were deservedly ejected from
that fertile Garden. God came to the realization that you were weak and could not discriminate.
Hence, He spoke to men in their weakness. ‘Do not judge that you may not be
judged.’ [ Matt 7:1 ] He bade you, therefore, to be obedient to His imposed command,
because He knew that your judgment was weak. If you had not disregarded this order, you would
never ha[ve] run the risk of wavering in your judgment. And, since you wished to form a judgment,
for that reason He added: ‘Indeed Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and
evil.’ [ Gen 3:22 ] You desired to claim judgment as your right. Hence you ought not to
oppose the penalty for misguided judgment. Nevertheless, He placed you in such a position outside
Paradise that the recollection of it may never leave you.

Hence the just are caught up into Paradise, just as Paul ‘was caught up into paradise
and heard secret words that man may not repeat.’ [ 2 Cor 12:4,5 ] And if by the vigor
of your mind you are caught up from the first heaven to the second and from the second heaven to
the third, we can explain it in this way. Each and every man is first of all corporeal; secondly,
he is of a sensual nature; and thirdly, he is spiritual in that he is carried to the third heaven
to behold the brilliance of spiritual grace. ‘The sensual man does not perceive the
things that are of the Spirit.’ [ 1 Cor 2:14 ] For that reason the ascent into the
third heaven is necessary for him in order that he may be caught up into Paradise. At this stage,
without incurring danger, you will be caught up, in order that you may be able to pass judgment
on all things, because ’the spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by
no man.’ [ 1 Cor 2:15 ] Perchance, although still infirm, you will hear secret words
that man may not repeat. Forbear to reveal anything and keep in your heart what you shall hear.
Paul the Apostle kept these words in his heart lest he fall and for a certainty lead others into
sin. Or perhaps Paul used the words ’that man may not repeat' [ 2 Cor 12:4 ] because
he was still in the body, that is to say, because he saw the passions of this body of ours and
because he saw the law of his flesh ‘warring against the law of his mind.’ [
Rom 7:23 ] I prefer to take the meaning in this sense, lest the question of future danger should
seem to be disregarded. That would imply freedom during our lifetime from the anxiety and dread
of snares which might lead to sin in the future. Whoever, therefore, shall reach upward into
Paradise by the exercise of virtue will hear those hidden and secret words of God. He shall hear,
too, the Lord speaking as to the repentant thief who abandoned his life of thievery for one of
faith: ‘This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.’ [ Luke 23:43 ]

‘Now the serpent was more cunning than any of the beasts of
the field which the Lord had made. The serpent said to the woman: Did God say, you shall not eat
of any tree of the garden?' [ Gen 3:1 ] In the statement ‘the serpent was more
cunning’ you understand to whom reference is made. This is our Adversary, whose wisdom is
of this world. Gratification of pleasure has been fittingly called wisdom, because it is called
the wisdom of the flesh as in the statement, ‘The wisdom of this flesh is hostile to
God.’ [ Rom 8:7 ] The seekers after pleasure are shrewd in their choice of means for
its gratification. If you understand, therefore, gratification of pleasure to be, in fact, an act
contrary to the divine command and hostile to our senses, this is in accord with what Paul
states: ‘I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and making
me prisoner in the law of sin. [ Rom 7:23 ] If you ascribe this to the Devil, what other
cause of enmity is there except envy? As Solomon says: ‘By the envy of the devil death
came into the world.’ [ Wisd. 2:24 ] The cause of envy was the happiness of man placed
in Paradise, because the Devil could not brook the favors received by man. His envy was aroused
because man, though formed in slime, was chosen to be an inhabitant of Paradise. The Devil began
to reflect that man was an inferior creature, yet had hopes of an eternal life, whereas he, a
creature of superior nature, had fallen and had become part of this mundane existence. This is
the substance of his invidious reflection: ‘Will this inferior acquire what I was unable to
keep? Will he leave the earth and attain heaven, whereas I have fallen to earth thrust down from
heaven? I have many ways and means by which to deceive man. He was made of slime, earth is his
mother, and he is involved in things corruptible. Although of superior nature, his soul is
nevertheless subject to temptation, since it exists in the prison house of the body--witness my
own experience in being unable to avoid sin. This, therefore, is my first approach, namely, to
deceive him while he is desirous of improving his condition. In this way an attempt will be made
to arouse his ambition. The next approach is by way of the flesh, promising fulfillment of all
his desires. Finally, how else can I appear to be wiser than all men if not by the exercise of
cunning and fraud in my warfare of entrenchment against man?’ Accordingly, he contrived not
to attack Adam first. Rather, he aimed to circumvent Adam by means of the woman. He did not
accost the man who had in his presence received the heavenly command. He accosted her who had
learned of it from her husband and who had not received from God the command which was to be
observed. There is no statement that God spoke to the woman. We know that he spoke to Adam. Hence
we must conclude that the command was communicated through Adam to the woman.

The nature of the temptation presented on this occasion is now clear. In addition to this,
there are other occasions when many other kinds of temptations are in store for us. Some of these
come from the Prince of this world, who has vomited into this world what might be called
poisonous wisdom, so that men believe the false to be true and are emotionally carried away by
mere appearance. The Enemy’s attack is not always in the open. There are certain powers who
put on the external form of what is desirable and gratifying so as to pour into our thoughts the
poison of their iniquities. From this source come those sins which arise from indulgence in
pleasures or from some infirmity of the mind. There are still other powers who may be said to
wrestle with us, as the Apostle says: ‘For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood
but against the Principalities and Powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the
spiritual forces of wickedness on high.’ [ Eph 6:12 ] They wish by this belligerency of
theirs to break us and, so to speak, to force out the breath of life from our bodies. Wherefore,
like a good athlete, Paul knew how to parry the blows of the opposing powers and even to strike
them as they advanced to the attack. Hence he says: ‘I strike with my fists, not as one
beating the air.’ [ 1 Cor 9:26 ] And so like a good athlete he merited the crown of
victory. [ 2 Tim 4:8 ] The temptations of the Devil, then, are manifold. For that reason he is
believed to be a deadly, double-tongued serpent, doing the Devil’s work by saying one thing
with the tongue and by harboring other thoughts in his mind. There are other servants of the
Devil who aim at us poisonous shafts of word and thought, such as are described by the Lord:
‘You brood of vipers, how can you speak good things when you are evil?' [ Matt 12:34
]

‘And the serpent said to the woman: Did God say
you shall not eat of any tree of the garden? The woman answered the serpent: Of the fruit of any
tree in the garden we shall eat, but of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you
shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ [ Gen 3:1,Gen 3:2, Gen 3:3
] Although you are aware that the serpent is wiser than all creatures, his cunning is especially
noticeable here. As he sets his snares, he pretends to give utterance to the words of God, for
God had already said: ‘From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for the day you eat of it you must die. [
Gen 2:16 ] The serpent inserted a falsehood in questioning the woman thus: ‘Did God say,
you shall not eat of any tree?’ Whereas God had actually said: ‘From every tree of
the garden you may eat, but from one tree you must not eat,’ meaning, by that, the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil which was not to be tasted. We need not wonder at the manner of
deception. Deceit accompanies any effort at ensnaring an individual. The serpent’s question
was not without its purpose. But the woman’s reply will indicate that there was nothing
questionable in the command of God: ‘Of the fruit of all the trees in the garden we may
eat, but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it
neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ There was nothing inexact about the command
itself. The error lay in the report of the command. The Scriptural passage under discussion is
self-explanatory. We realize that we ought not to make any addition to a command even by way of
instruction. Any addition or qualification of a command is in the nature of a falsification. The
simple, original form of a command should be preserved or the facts should be duly set before us.
It frequently happens that a witness adds something of himself to a relation of facts. In this
way, by the injection of an untruth, confidence in his testimony is wholly shattered. No addition
therefore--not even a good one--is called for. What is, therefore, at first sight objectionable
in the addition made by the woman: ‘Neither shall you touch anything of it'? God did not
say this, but, rather: ‘you must not eat.’ Still, we have here something which leads
to error. There are two possibilities to the addition she made: Either it is superfluous or
because of this personal contribution she has made God’s command only partly intelligible.
John in his writings has made this clear: ‘If anyone shall add to them, God will add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone shall take away from these
words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life.’
[ Rev 22:18,19 ] If this is true in this case, how much truer is it that nothing should be
taken away from the commands laid down by God! From this springs the primary violation of the
command. And many believe that this was Adam’s fault--not the woman’s. They reason
that Adam in his desire to make her more cautious had said to the woman that God had given the
additional instruction: ‘Neither shall you touch it.’ We know that it was not Eve,
but Adam, who received the command from God, because the woman had not yet been created.
Scripture does not reveal the exact words that Adam used when he disclosed to her the nature and
content of the command. At all events, we understand that the substance of the command was given
to the woman by the man. What opinions others have offered on this subject should be taken into
consideration. It seems to me, however, that the initial violation and deceit was due to the
woman. Although there may appear to be an element of uncertainty in deciding which of the two was
guilty, we can discern the sex which was liable first to do wrong. Add to this the fact that she
stands convicted in court whose previous error is afterward revealed. The woman is responsible
for the man’s error and not vice-versa. Hence Paul says: ‘Adam was not deceived,
but the woman was deceived and was in sin.’ [ 1 Tim 2:14 ]

Now let us examine another question relative to the addition which was made to the command.
Does this addition in itself seem to be objectionable? If the words, ‘neither shall you
touch it,’ are actually advantageous and tend to put one on his guard, why did not God
expressly forbid this even to the point of seemingly permitting it by not forbidding it?
Wherefore, both points must be examined; namely, the reasons why He neither permitted it nor
forbade it. Some raise the question: Why did He not order that the object which He had made
should be seen and touched? But, when you realize that there was in that tree the knowledge of
good and evil, you can understand that He did not wish you to touch what is evil. Sufficient is
it for us, using the words of the Lord, ’to watch Satan fall as lightning from
heaven,’ [ Luke 10:18 ] and giving to his sons not the meat of life, but that of night
and darkness, as it is written: ‘He gave him to be meat for the people of the
Ethiopians.’ [ Ps 73:14 ] Thus far on the subject of the reason why He did not command
the tree to be touched. Here are the reasons, as I understand them, why God did not prohibit this
act. There are many things which do us harm, if we make up our minds to touch them before we know
what they are. We often learn, in fact, by experience to be resigned if we know beforehand that a
certain food or drink is bitter. You learn to be tolerant if you believe that what is bitter is
beneficial, lest your sudden realization of its bitterness may offend you and cause you to reject
what may prove to be salutary. It is advantageous, therefore, first to have knowledge of this
bitter quality, so that you may not be squeamish and that you may realize what is good for you.
These are examples of what may harm us just to a slight degree. From the discussion which now
follows, take warning of what may cause us more serious damage unless we make provision against
it.

Take the case of the Gentile who is eager for the faith. He becomes a catechumen and desires a
greater fullness of doctrine to strengthen his faith. See to it that in his willingness to learn
he is not exposed to false doctrine. Take care that he does not learn from Photinus or from Arius
or from Sabellius. See that he does not hand himself over to teachers of this sort who would
attract him by their airs of authority, so that his untrained mind, impressed by the weight of
such august prestige, will be unable to discriminate the right from the wrong. He should first,
therefore, determine with the eyes of his mind what are the logical sequences. Let him note where
life exists by touching the life-giving qualities of holy Scripture, so that no interpreter will
stand in his way. Sabellius reads for him: ‘I am in the Father and the Father in
me,’ [ John 14:10 ] and says that means one Person. Photinus reads that ’there
is one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.’ [ 1 Tim 2:5 ] And
elsewhere: ‘Why do you wish to kill me, a man?' [ John 8:40 ] Arius, too, read the
following: ‘For the Father is greater than I.’ [ John 14:28 ] The reading is
clear, but the catechumen first ought to reflect on the matter in his own mind, so as to discover
the real meaning of these passages. He is influenced by the prestige of his teachers. It would
have been more to his advantage if he had not investigated at all rather than have come upon such
an instructor. But the Gentile, too, if he takes up the Scriptures, reads: ‘Eye for eye,
tooth for tooth.’ [ Lev 24:20 ] Again: ‘If thy right hand is an occasion of
sin to thee, cut it off.’ [ Matt 5:30 ] He does not understand the sense of this. He is
not aware of the secret meaning of the divine words. He is worse off than if he had not read at
all. Hence he has furnished a lesson to these men on how they should have investigated the
meaning of the Word of God. A careful, not a superficial, examination of the context of the
passage should be made. It is written: ‘What was from the beginning, what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have investigated: of the
Word of Life. And we have seen and now testify and announce to you.’ [ John 1:1,2 ] You
see how he investigated, so to speak, with his hands the Word of God and afterward announced it.
Hence, the Word would not perhaps have caused injury to Adam and Eve if they had first touched
and handled it, as it were, with the hands of the mind. Those who are infirm can by careful
examination and handling investigate the nature of each and every object which they do not
understand. Certainly, those weak first parents of ours should have studied beforehand the
problem presented to them: How were they to touch the tree in which they knew there was knowledge
of evil? The knowledge of evil, in fact, can frequently be of advantage to us. Wherefore we read
in the oracular words of Scripture of the wiles of the Devil, so that we learn how we can escape
his arts. We should be aware of his temptations, not that we may follow his lead, but that by
instruction we may avoid these pitfalls.

At this point there are some who doubt whether God meant that the fruit of every tree should
be eaten--this injunction to include every tree, inclusive of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil--or whether, in fact, He referred to every tree, but excluded only the tree of knowledge
of good and evil? These people are of the opinion that this matter is not without significance,
because, although the fruit of this tree is harmful in itself, still, if it were combined with
that of the other trees, it could not be injurious. They cite as example of this fact the belief
that an antidote can be obtained from the body of a serpent which, being poisonous since it is
extracted from a serpent, is harmful when taken alone, but when mixed with other drugs has
medicinal properties. The knowledge of good and evil, also, if one possesses wisdom that is ever
an aid toward survival and if one reaches out after the other types of virtue, is considered to
be of no inconsiderable value. On that account, therefore, many hold that we can even understand
the reason why God made this prohibition. He did not wish that tree of the knowledge of good and
evil should be eaten alone and not in combination with the fruit of the others. He did not
prohibit this if the other trees are taken into consideration at the same time. Wherefore what
God said to Adam is cited: ‘Who told you that you were naked? You have eaten, then, of
the tree which alone I commanded you not to eat.’ [ Gen 3:11 ] This would seem to offer
an occasion for disputation. In the preceding passage the woman might well have not made any
reply to the serpent’s question: ‘Did God say, you shall not eat of any tree of
the garden?' But she answered: ‘Of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said,
you shall not eat of it.’ In this incident, as she was on the point of sinning, the
woman’s faith may appear to have been weak. Moreover, I shall not despoil Adam of all the
virtues, so that he would appear to have attained no virtue in Paradise and would seem to have
eaten nothing from the other trees, but had fallen into sin before he had obtained any fruit. I
shall, therefore, not despoil Adam lest I may despoil the whole human race, which is innocent
before it acquires the capacity to know good and evil. Not without reason was it said:
‘Unless you turn and become like this child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven.’ [ Matt 18:3 ] The child, when he is scolded, does not retaliate. When he is
struck, he does not strike back. He is not conscious of the allurements of ambition and
self-seeking.

The truth seems to be, then, that He commanded the tree not to be eaten, not even along with
the fruit of the other trees. Knowledge of good, in fact, although of no use to a perfect man,
is, on the other hand, of no value to a man who is imperfect. Paul speaks of himself as
imperfect: ‘Not that I have already obtained this or already have been made perfect, but
I press on hoping that I may lay hold of it already.’ [ Phil 3:12 ] Hence the Lord says
to the imperfect: ‘Do not judge that you may not be judged.’ [ Matt 7:1 ]
Knowledge is, therefore, of no use to the imperfect. Hence we read: ‘I did not know sin
unless the Law had said, thou shalt not lust.’ And further on we read: ‘For
without the Law sin is dead.’ [ Rom 7:7,8 ] What advantage is it to me to know what I
cannot avoid? What avails it for me to know that the law of my flesh assails me? Paul is assailed
and sees ’the law of his flesh warring against that of his mind and making him prisoner
to the law of sin.’ He does not rely on himself, but by the grace of Christ is
confident of his ’deliverance from the body of death.’ [ Rom 7:23:24 ] Do you
think that anyone with knowledge of sin can avoid it? Paul says: ‘For I do not the good
that I wish, but the evil that I do not wish.’ [ Rom 7:19 ] Do you consider that this
knowledge which adds to the reproach of sin can be of help to man? Granted, however, that the
perfect man is unable to sin. God foresaw all men in the person of Adam. Hence it was not fitting
that the human race in general should have a knowledge of good and evil--a knowledge which he
could not utilize because of the weakness of the flesh.

Let us learn, therefore, that the temptations of the
Devil are full of guile. Of the things that he promised, scarcely one of them seems to be true.
He contrived falsehoods, as we can see if we read elsewhere: ‘And the serpent said to
the woman, you shall not die.’ [ Gen 3:4 ] Here we have one falsehood, for man, who
followed the promises of the serpent, is subject to death. Hence he added: ‘For God
knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened.’ [ Gen 3:5 ] This alone is
true, because further on we read: ‘They both ate and their eyes were opened.’
[ Gen 3:7 ] But the truth is that as a result of this act harm followed. Hence, opening
one’s eyes is not to everyone’s advantage, for it is written: ‘They will see
and will not see.’ [ Isa 6:9 ] But the serpent was quick to attack a falsehood to his
statement, when he said: ‘And you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.’ [
Gen 3:5 ] Hence you may note that the serpent is the author of idolatry, for his cunning seems to
be responsible for man’s error in introducing many gods. His deceit lay in stating that
they will be like gods, for not only have men ceased to be like gods, but even those men who were
like gods (to whom it was spoken, ‘I have said you are gods') [ Ps 81:6 ] have
fallen from His favor.

‘And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes and
beautiful to gaze upon.’ [ Gen 3:6 ] She showed her weakness in passing judgment on what
she had not tasted. It is not easy under any circumstance to make such an assumption without deep
reflection and a careful examination of the facts. ‘She took of its fruit,’ we are
told, ‘and ate it and also gave some to her husband and they both ate.’ [ Gen 3:6
] Omission is made, and rightly so, of the deception of Adam, since he fell by his wife’s
fault and not because of his own.

‘And their eyes were opened,’ we are told, ‘and they realized that they
were naked.’ [ Gen 3:7 ] They were naked, it is true, before this time, but they were
not devoid of the garments of virtue. They were naked because of the purity of their character
and because nature knows nothing of the cincture of deceit. Now, on the other hand, the mind of
man is veiled in many folds of deception. When, therefore, they saw that they had been despoiled
of the purity and simplicity of their untainted nature, they began to look for objects made by
the hand of man wherewith to cover the nakedness of their minds and hearts. They added
gratification so as to increase the idle pleasures of this world, sewing, as it were, leaf upon
leaf in order to conceal and cover the organ of generation. But how explain the fact that Adam
had his bodily eyes closed, whereas he was able to see all living creatures and confer names upon
them? Well, just as by way of an inner and deeper knowledge they were able to realize, not that
they were without garments, but that the protective covering of virtue was no longer theirs.

‘So they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves coverings.’ [ Gen
3:7 ] We are taught by the content of holy Scripture how we should interpret the meaning of the
word ‘fig’ in this passage. Scripture relates that the saints are those who find rest
beneath the vine and the fig. [ Mich 4:4 ] Solomon has said: ‘Who plants the fig tree
and does not eat the fruit thereof?' [ Prov 27:18 ] Yet the owner may come to the fig tree
and may be offended by finding there merely leaves and no fruit. I have information from Adam
himself, in fact, about the significance of the leaves. He proceeded to make a covering for
himself out of the leaves of the fig tree after he had sinned, whereas he should have had its
fruit instead. The just man chooses the fruit; the sinner, the leaves. What is the fruit? We
read: ‘The fruit of the spirit is charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, modesty,
continency, love.’ [ Gal 5:22 ] He who possessed no fruit possessed no joy. The person
who violated the command of God did not have faith, and he who ate of the forbidden tree did not
have the virtue of continency.

Whoever, therefore, violates the command of God has become naked and despoiled, a reproach to
himself. He wants to cover himself and hide his genitals with fig leaves, making use, as it were
of empty and idle talk which the sinner interweaves word after word with fallacies for the
purpose of shielding himself from his awareness of his guilty deed. Desiring to conceal his
fault, he throws leaves over himself, at the same time indicating that the Devil is responsible
for his crime. He offers allurements of the flesh or the recommendations of another individual as
excuses for his wrongdoing. He frequently produces examples from holy Scripture, citing them as
instances of how a just man may fall into sin, the sin of adultery: ‘And Abraham lay with
his handmaid and David loved a strange woman whom he made his wife.’ [ Gen 16:13; 2 Kings
11:4 ] He patches together examples for his purposes from the list of prophetical books of
Scripture. He sees the leaves and ignores the fruit.

Do not the Jews seem to you to be patchers of leaves when they interpret in a material manner
the words of the spiritual Law? Their interpretation, condemned to eternal aridity, loses all the
characteristic greenness of the fruit. There is a correct interpretation, therefore, which points
to a fruitful and spiritual fig tree beneath which just men and saints find their rest. [ Micah
4:4 ] Whoever plants this tree in the souls of every man will eat the fruit thereof, as Paul
says: ‘I have planted, Apollos watered.’ [ 1 Cor 3:6 ] But the wrong
interpretation will not confer the fruit nor conserve its viridity.

It was a serious matter, therefore, when, following this interpretation, Adam girded himself
in that place where it would have been better that he havhad girded himself with the fruit of
chastity. Seeds of generation are said to exist in our loins around which we bind our garments.
Hence, Adam did wrong on that occasion when he girded himself with leaves that have no utility,
inasmuch as by this act he implied, not the fruit of a future generation, but certain sins which
remained until the coming of our Lord and Saviour. But, when the master came, He found the fig
tree uncultivated. Elsewhere, when requested that he should order it to be cut down, the owner of
the fig tree allowed it to be cultivated. [ Matt 21:19; Luke 13:6-9 ] And so we gird ourselves,
not with leaves, but with the divine Word, as the Lord Himself says: ‘Let your loins be
girt about and your lamps burning.’ [ Luke 12:35 ] Wherefore He prohibits us to carry
money even in our girdles. [ Matt 10:9 ] Our girdles ought not to store up worldly objects, but
things of eternal nature.

‘And they heard the voice of the Lord walking in the
garden towards evening.’ [ Gen 3:8 ] What does ‘walking’ mean in reference
to God, who is everywhere? In my opinion God may be said to walk wherever throughout Scripture
the presence of God is implied, when we hear that He sees all things and ’ the eyes of
the Lord are upon the just.’ [ Ps 33:16 ] We read, too, that Jesus knew their thoughts
and we read: ’ Why do you harbor evil thoughts in your hearts?' [ Luke 6:8: Matt 9:4
] When we reflect, therefore, on these statements, we have a knowledge of God in the act of
walking. The sinner, in fact, had tried to hide away from the sight of God. He wished to conceal
himself in his thoughts and was unwilling that his works appear in the light of day.’ [
Matt 5:16 ] The just man saw Him face to face, [ Deut 34:10; 1 Cor 13:12 ] because the mind of
the just man is in the presence of God and even converses with Him, as it is written: ’
Judge for the fatherless and defend the widow said the Lord.’ [ Isa 1:17,18 ] When a
sinner, therefore, reads these passages from Scripture, he hears the voice of God walking towards
evening, so to speak. What does the phrase ‘towards evening’ mean? Does it not mean
that the sinner realizes his sin too late and that the shame which should have forestalled the
fault before it occurred was itself too late?

While the sinner is physically overcome by passions that affect the soul, he in his errant
fashion does not heed, that is to say, does not hear, God, as He in holy Scripture walks in the
hearts and minds of each and every one of us. God says: ’ For I will dwell in their
midst and I will walk among them and will be their God.’ [ Lev. 26:12 ] Therefore, the
dread of divine power returns to the soul when we are eager to hide ourselves. Then, placed as we
are by the thought of our sins in the midst of the trees of Paradise where we committed sin, we
are discovered to be desirous of concealing ourselves and to be thinking of hidden things which
God does not demand of us. But He who is ’ the discerner of our thoughts and intentions
of our hearts, extending to the division of soul and spirit,’ [ Heb 4:12 ] says:
’ Adam, where are you?' [ Gen 3:9 ]

How does God speak? Is it with the voice of the body? Not at all. He utters oracular words
with a voice that is far more significant than is the voice of the body. The prophets heard this
voice. It is heard by the faithful, but the wicked do not comprehend it. Wherefore we find the
Evangelist in the Gospel listening to the voice of the Father speaking: ’ I have
glorified it and will glorify it again.’ But the Jews did not listen. Hence they said:
’ I had thundered.’ [ John 12:28.29 ] We have given an instance above wherein
God was thought to be walking when He was not. Here is an occasion when He was heard speaking,
whereas to some people He spoke not.

But let us take note of what He speaks: ‘Adam, where, are you?’ Even now these
words have the healing power of salvation for those who hear the Word of God. Hence it is that
the Jews who closed their eyes lest they hear do not deserve to hear even today. It follows that
those who conceal themselves have a remedy, for he who hides himself is ashamed and he who is
ashamed is converted, as it is written: ’ Let them be much troubled and let them all be
turned back speedily.’ [ Ps 6:11 ] The very fact of His calling a person is a testimony
of salvation to him who comes, because the Lord calls those for whom He feels pity. When He says,
therefore, ‘where are you?’ it is not a question of a locality to one who knows what
is hidden. God did not have His eyes closed, so that a man in hiding was able to escape His
notice. For that reason He said: ’ Adam has become like one of us,’ [ Gen 3:22
] because his eyes were opened. He, in fact, opened his eyes, so that he saw his own sin which he
was unable to avoid. It happens that after we have sinned, we become, somehow or other, more
aware of our crimes. We are then aware of the sin which we did not consider to be such before we
actually fell into sin. Certainly we did not then believe that a sin was subject to our
disapproval, for, if we had felt guilty, we would not have committed it. God sees the faults of
all men and knows their offenses. His eyes penetrate into the secrets of the souls of each and
every one of us. What, then, does He mean by ‘Adam, where are you?’ Does He not mean
‘in what circumstances’ are you; not, ‘in what place'? It is, therefore, not a
question, but a reproof. From what condition of goodness, beatitude, and grace, He means to say,
have you fallen into this state of misery? You have forsaken eternal life. You have entombed
yourself in the ways of sin and death. Where is that noble confidence and trust of yours? That
fear that you show is evidence of your wrongdoing and that hiding place of yours betrays your
dereliction. ‘Where are you?’ does not mean ‘in what place,’ but
‘in what condition.’ Where have your sins led you, so that you fled the God whom
before you sought after? Perhaps you are disturbed by the fact that Adam is the first to be
rebuked, although the woman was the first to eat the fruit. But the weaker sex begins by an act
of disobedience, whereas the stronger sex is more liable to feelings of shame and forgiveness.
The female furnished the occasion for wrongdoing; the male, the opportunity to feel ashamed.

And the woman said: ’ The serpent deceived me and I
ate.’ [ Gen 3:13 ] That fault is pardonable which is followed by an admission of guilt.
The woman, therefore, is not to be despaired of, who did not keep silent before God, but who
preferred to admit her sin--the woman on whom was passed a sentence that was salutary. It is good
to suffer condemnation for our sins and to be scourged for our crimes, provided we are scourged
along with other men. Hence, Cain, because he wanted to deny his guilt, was judged unworthy to be
punished in his sin. He was forgiven without prescribed penalty, not, perhaps, for having
committed such a serious crime as parricide--he was responsible for his brother’s death--as
one of sacrilege, in that he thought he had deceived God when he said: ’ I do not know.
Am I my brother’s keeper?' [ Gen 4:9 ] And so the accusation is reserved for his
accuser, the Devil, prescribing that he be scourged along with his angels, since he did not wish
to be scourged with men. Of such, therefore, has it been said: ’ There is no regard for
their death and they shall not be scourged like other men.’ [ Ps 72:4,5 ] The
woman’s case is, accordingly, of a different character. Although she incurred the sin of
disobedience, she still possessed in the tree of Paradise food for virtue. And so she admitted
her sin and was considered worthy of pardon. ’ The just is first accuser of himself
in the beginning of his speech.’ [ Prov 18:17 ] No one can be justified from sin unless he
has first made confession of his sin. Wherefore the Lord says: ’ Tell if thou hast
anything to justify thyself.’ [ Isa 43:26 ]

Because Eve has admitted her crime, she is given a milder and more salutary sentence, which
condemned her wrong-doing and did not refuse pardon. [ Gen 3:16 ] She was to serve under her
husband’s power, first, that she might not be inclined to do wrong, and, secondly, that,
being in a position subject to a stronger vessel, she might not dishonor her husband, but on the
contrary, might be governed by his counsel. [ 1 Peter 3:7 ] I see clearly here the mystery of
Christ and His Church. The Church’s turning toward Christ in times to come and a religious
servitude submissive to the Word of God--these are conditions far better than the liberty of this
world. Hence it is written: ’ Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and shall serve him
only.’ [ Deut 6:13; Luke 4:8 ] Servitude, therefore, of this sort is a gift of God.
Wherefore, compliance with this servitude is to be reckoned among blessings. We have the example
of Isaac granting it as a blessing to his son Esau that he should serve his brothers. Hence he
asked for his father’s blessing. Although he knew that one blessing had been taken from
him, he asked for another: ’ Have you only one blessing, father?' [ Gen 27:40,38 ]
By this servitude, therefore, Esau, who had before he sold birthright to satisfy his appetite and
who in his zeal for hunting in the field had not the benefits derived from a blessing, [ Gen
25:27 ] had now come to believe that he would fare better in the future if he would pay reverence
to his brother as a type of Christ. By this kind of servitude Christian folk grow strong, as we
have it expressed in the words of the Lord to His disciples: ’ Whoever wishes to be
first among you, let him be the slave of all of you.’ [ Matt 20:27 ] Hence charity,
which is greater than hope and faith, brings this servitude to pass, for it is written:
’ By charity serve one another.’ [ Gal 5:13 ] This, then, is the mystery
mentioned by the Apostle in reference to Christ and the Church. [ Eph. 5:32 ] The servitude
existed formerly, in fact, but in a condition of disobedience which was to be later made salutary
by the generation of children ’ in faith and love and holiness with modesty.’
[ 1 Tim 2:15 ] What was certainly among the fathers a generation brought into existence in sin
shall become salutary in the children, so that what was a stumbling block to the Jews shall in
the society of Christians undergo improvement.

’ The serpent urged me,’ she said. This seemed to God to be pardonable,
inasmuch as He knew that the serpent found numerous ways to deceive people. ’ Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light’ and ‘his ministers as ministers of
justice,’ [ 2 Cor 11:14,15 ] imposing false names on individual things, so as to call
‘rashness’ a virtue and avarice ‘industry.’ The serpent, in fact,
deceived the woman and the woman led the man away from truth to a violation of duty. The serpent
is a type of the pleasures of the body. The woman stands for our senses and the man, for our
minds. Pleasure stirs the senses, which, in turn, have their effect on the mind. Pleasure,
therefore, is the primary source of sin. For this reason, do not wonder at the fact that by
God’s judgment the serpent was first condemned, then the woman, and finally the man. The
order of condemnation, too, corresponded to that of the crimes committed, for pleasure usually
captivates the senses and the senses, the mind. To convince you that the serpent is the type of
pleasure, take note of his condemnation.

’ On your breast and on your belly shall you crawl,’
[ Gen 3:14 ] we read. Only those who live for the pleasures of the stomach can be said to
walk on their bellies, ’ whose god is their belly and their glory is their shame,’
[ Phil 3:19 ] who eat of what is earthy, and who, weighed down with food, are bent over
towards what is of earth. The serpent is well called the symbol of pleasure in that, intent on
food, he seems to feed on the earth: ’ On your breast and on your belly shall you crawl,
dust shall you eat all the days of your life.’ [ Gen 3:14 ] We should not tolerate any
of the excuses the Devil may make. By so doing we may, perchance, offer him an occasion to
display his wickedness. We do this when we say that his iniquity resulted from his condemnation
and hence that he aimed constantly to injure mankind because he was condemned for the very
purpose of doing us harm. This seems to be pretty fanciful. If we regard the sentence passed on
him to be in the nature of a condemnation, God did not condemn the serpent in order to cause
injury to man. He pointed out what was to happen in the future. Furthermore, we have demonstrated
above how that temptation can be of great service to mankind. What we are to expect can in some
measure be gathered from our knowledge of what has been written: ’ Whoever shall glorify
me, him will I glorify and he that despises me shall be despised.’ [ 1 Kings 2:30 ] God
brings to pass what is good, not what is evil, as His words can teach you that He confers glory
and disregards punishment. ‘Whosoever shall glorify me,’ He says, ‘him will I
glorify,’ thus declaring that the glory of the good is the purpose of His work. And
concerning ‘him that despises me,’ He did not say I shall deprive of glory, but that
he shall be deprived of glory. He did not avow that injury to them would be the result of His
action, but pointed out what was to come. He did not say, therefore, I shall make you crawl on
your breast and belly and feed on earth all the days of your life. What He actually said was:
‘You shall crawl and you shall eat,’ in this way showing that He predicted what the
serpent would do in the future rather than prescribe what he was to do. The earth, not the soul,
He said, is your food, and this, in fact, can be of profit to sinners. Hence the Apostle
’ delivered such a one for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in
the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ [ 1 Cor 5:5 ] He says that the serpent crawls on his
breast and belly. This is due not so much to the shape of his body as to the fact that he has
fallen from celestial happiness because of his thoughts of earth. The breast, in fact, is
frequently referred to as the seat of wisdom. And so the Apostle leans his head, not on the
ground, but on Christ’s breast. [ John 13:25; 21:20 ] If, therefore, the wisdom of the
Devil is compared to that of the most cruel of animals whose breast is between its legs, if men,
too, who, ’ minding the things of the earth' [ Phil 3:20 ] and without the inner
urge to rise towards heaven, have the appearance of crawling on their bellies--then we surely
ought to fill the belly of our souls with the Word of God rather than with the corruptible things
of this world. Fittingly, therefore, does David, assuming the character of Adam, say: ’
My soul is humbled down to the dust, my belly cleaveth to the earth.’ [ Ps 43:25 ] He
used the word ‘cleaveth’ in reference to the serpent who feeds on earthly iniquities.
Thus the Apostle says that we should take on the pattern of Christ, so that the virtue of Christ
may extend to you. [ Phil 3:17 ] The sentence imposed on the serpent is not considered a heavy
one, since even Adam, whose offense was less serious, was accorded a like sentence.

For it is written: ‘Cursed is the earth in thy
works; in sadness shall you eat thereof all the days of your life.’ [ Gen 3:17 ] The
two sentences seem to have a certain similarity, yet in that similarity there is a great
difference. There is a difference in the way a person eats of the earth, as the serpent is
related to have done and the manner in which this is recorded of the man: ‘In sadness shall
you eat.’ That very phrase ‘in sadness’ makes the precise difference. Note how
important this difference is. It is for my benefit that I should eat the earth in sadness rather
than with delight, that is to say, that I should appear to feel a certain sadness in my bodily
acts and senses rather than experience pleasure in sin. Many, in fact, because of their manifold
iniquities have no awareness of sin. But he who says: ’ I chastise my body and bring it
into subjection,’ [ 1 Cor 9:27 ] feels sadness because of regret for the sins to which
we are subject. He himself did not have such serious faults for which he ought to feel sorrow.
Hence he teaches us that that kind of sorrow is of value which has, not this world, but God, as
its end. It is right, he says, that you become sorrowful, so as to feel repentance in the face of
God: ’ For the sorrow that is according to God produces salvation, whereas the sorrow
that is according to the world produces death.’ [ 2 Cor 7:9,10 ] Take note of those who
in the Old Testament were sorrowful in the midst of their bodily labors and who attained grace,
while those who found delight in such pleasures continued to be punished. Hence the Hebrews, who
groaned in the works of Egypt, [ Exod 2:23 ] attained the grace of the just and those ’
who ate bread with mourning and fear,’ [ Tob 2:5 ] were supplied with spiritual good.
The Egyptians, on the other hand, who, in their service to a detestable king, carried out such
works with joy, received no favor. [ Exod 16:14-18 ]

There, too, is that distinction between the serpent who is said to eat the earth and Adam, to
whom God said: ’ You shall eat in sadness the herbs of the field.’ [ Gen 3:18
] We may note here a certain gradation. When we eat the earth, it seems that we are in a sort of
warfare. when we eat the herbs, there is a certain advance. when finally, we eat bread, then our
life of trial has reached it terminus. Let us experience a series of advancements in this life as
Paul did: ’ It is now no longer I that live,’ that is, not I who before this
ate the earth, not I who ate grass, for ‘all flesh is grass,’ but ‘Christ
lives in me.’ [ Gal 2:20 ] This signifies that living bread which comes from heaven, [
John 6:50 ] and that wisdom, too is living, together with grace, justice, and resurrection.
Again, consider the fact that it is the serpent and not man who is cursed. And the earth is not
curses in itself but is ‘cursed in your work.’ This is said in refernece to
the soul. The earth is cursed if your works are earthly, that is of this world. It is not cursed
as a whole. It will merely bring forth thorns and thistles, if it is not diligently cared for by
the labor of human hands. If we do not toil over it in labor and sweat we shall not eat bread.
The law of the flesh wars against the law of the mind. We must labor and sweat so as to chasitse
the body and bring it into subjection and sow the seads of spiritual things. If we sow what is
carnal, we shall reap fruit that is carnal. If, however, we sow what is spiritual, we shall reap
the fruit of the spirit.

---

From The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 42, St. Ambrose Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and
Abel. Copyright 1961 Catholic University of America Press. Page 287-356.